This doesn't seem like an ad hominem attack at all. It's a criticism of criteria you're using to analyze DALL-E in this paper. You're talking about safety-critical applications, but nobody is expecting DALL-E to be used for those. Even your examples are just people tweeting generally about the future of AGI (the obvious context being that this is a big demonstrable step forward, not that DALL-E is an AGI that society is going to rely on for critical tasks).
Sure, if you analyze it based on the criteria you've set out, it fails. The point is that nobody else cares if it fails based on that criteria, because nobody else thinks that criteria is relevant.